This
matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
(ECF No. 20), recommending that Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 14-1) be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process as to Defendant
Jessica Mangum (“Mangum”). For the reasons stated
below, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report (ECF No. 20).

I.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On
April 26, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that he bought a bus ticket
at the Greyhound Bus Station in Columbia, South Carolina, but
was denied entry on the bus and arrested for trespassing by
Officer Reinold Mark Adams (“Adams”). (ECF No.
14-1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely imprisoned
for two (2) months and suffered emotional distress.
(Id.) Plaintiff's charge was eventually
dismissed on October 27, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff filed
his initial Complaint (ECF No. 1) on December 2, 2016, and an
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14-1) on January 9, 2017.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution, in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1] Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett filed the Report (ECF No. 20) on February 9,
2017. Plaintiff filed an Objection (ECF No. 25) to the Report
on February 14, 2017, and a Supplement to his Objection (ECF
No. 26) on February 21, 2017.

II.
LEGAL STANDARD

The
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court,
which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a
final determination remains with this court. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “The district judge may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence, or return the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions.” Id. at
72(b)(3).

III.
ANALYSIS

Liberally
construing Plaintiff's objections, pursuant to Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Plaintiff
specifically objects to the Report's finding that Mangum
is entitled to prosecutorial immunity because “she
acted outside her authority in the process of instigating and
pursuing a criminal case by creating false documents.”
(ECF Nos. 25 at 2; 26 at 2.) The court assumes that the false
documents Plaintiff refers to are his charging documents.

Mangum,
as the prosecuting attorney, allegedly “maliciously
prosecuted” Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 14-1 at 5; 20 at 1-2.)
“Section 1983 authorizes a party who has been deprived
of a federal right under the color of state law to seek
relief through ‘an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.'” City of
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S.
687, 707 (1999). However, Mangum, in deciding to prosecute
Plaintiff, is entitled to immunity from this suit. See
Imbler v. Pachtman,424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)(“[w]e
hold only that in initiating a prosecution and in presenting
the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil
suit for damages under § 1983.”); see also
Lyles v. Sparks,79 F.3d 372, 377 (4th Cir. 1996)
(“the Imbler Court specified that absolute
immunity protects prosecutors' decisions ‘whether
and when to prosecute.'”) Plaintiff alleges that
“Ms. Mangum initiated and pursued the original case
[for trespassing] for improper purposes.” (ECF Nos.
14-1 at 4-5, 25 at 2, 26 at 2.) The basis of Plaintiffs claim
is Mangum's decision whether to prosecute Plaintiff, thus
since Mangum was performing a prosecutorial function in
making this decision, she is entitled to absolute immunity
from suit.

IV.
CONCLUSION

For the
reasons stated above, the court ACCEPTS the
Report DISMISSING Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 14-1) without prejudice as against Mangum
and without issuance and service of process.

IT
IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] In his Objection to the Report,
Plaintiff also alleges a violation of his civil rights
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-42. (Conspiracy
against Rights and Deprivation of Rights ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.